Scan barcode
stadkison's reviews
299 reviews
How (Not) to Be Secular: Reading Charles Taylor by James K.A. Smith
1.0
God this is such nonsense. Smith loves his erudite and pretentious way of saying “I don’t like democracy and think feudalism was better.” Saved you the time and money it takes to parse this messy take.
The only use this has is some potentially insightful analyses of capital L liberalism, but of course, any good Marxist would make the points he does twice as well and without sliding into reactionary pablum. Of course, Smith, like any good “intellectual conservative,” gets in his shots at the “uneducated conservative” so he doesn’t offend his liberal friends too much, but it’s all a facade. He endorses all of the same conclusions as the most extreme fundamentalist; he just finds their means distateful.
Of course, the problems that Smith identifies (to the extent that they are real; much of his problems are with perhaps 2 or 3 of his friends in New York) are not caused by some ideological turn towards secularism (1, 2, or 3, to use his terminology. Rather, they function as an epiphenomenon of the material conditions we are under, namely, capitalism. As an “intellectual conservative,” of course, Smith can never directly come out and say that. All he ends up doing is getting in his jabs at “PC Culture” and, at one point, consumerism by saying everyone is akin to “13 year old girls” (note the misogyny) because we all care about fashion too much.
And this is not even getting to the absolutely annoying writing style, the constant references to (and misunderstandings of) indie bands to show he is with it, and, my personal favorite, thinking Nine Inch Nails wrote the song Personal Jesus so he can make a point about how Johnny Cash, because he’s a Christian good ol’ boy, does it better. My best guess as to the origins of that mistake is that he heard the Marilyn Manson cover, thought they wrote it, and confused them with NIN. Put some respect on Depeche Mode’s name.
Would not recommend.
The only use this has is some potentially insightful analyses of capital L liberalism, but of course, any good Marxist would make the points he does twice as well and without sliding into reactionary pablum. Of course, Smith, like any good “intellectual conservative,” gets in his shots at the “uneducated conservative” so he doesn’t offend his liberal friends too much, but it’s all a facade. He endorses all of the same conclusions as the most extreme fundamentalist; he just finds their means distateful.
Of course, the problems that Smith identifies (to the extent that they are real; much of his problems are with perhaps 2 or 3 of his friends in New York) are not caused by some ideological turn towards secularism (1, 2, or 3, to use his terminology. Rather, they function as an epiphenomenon of the material conditions we are under, namely, capitalism. As an “intellectual conservative,” of course, Smith can never directly come out and say that. All he ends up doing is getting in his jabs at “PC Culture” and, at one point, consumerism by saying everyone is akin to “13 year old girls” (note the misogyny) because we all care about fashion too much.
And this is not even getting to the absolutely annoying writing style, the constant references to (and misunderstandings of) indie bands to show he is with it, and, my personal favorite, thinking Nine Inch Nails wrote the song Personal Jesus so he can make a point about how Johnny Cash, because he’s a Christian good ol’ boy, does it better. My best guess as to the origins of that mistake is that he heard the Marilyn Manson cover, thought they wrote it, and confused them with NIN. Put some respect on Depeche Mode’s name.
Would not recommend.
Runaways, Vol. 5: Canon Fodder by Rainbow Rowell
4.0
As usual, this book is a delight. The art is clean and cute. The story of the found family continues in an interesting way. I must say, the twist was pretty obvious. Other than that, good stuff.
On that twist: I interpret it as a meta-commentary on comic books at large. The villain kills of what he views as supporting characters in order to boost his own popularity. This is reminiscent of the “fridging” dynamic, in which love interests (particularly women) are killed off to forward the (usual male) protagonists arc. It is relevant that the one he attempts to kill, Karolina, is wearing the suit of his former romantic partner. Just as comic books often tout deaths to boost sales (death of superman, death of the inhumans, etc), the villain wants (and has in the past) done the same. I guess this book is saying it is such a force of positivity that it is no longer necessary to kill of characters for drama.
On that twist: I interpret it as a meta-commentary on comic books at large. The villain kills of what he views as supporting characters in order to boost his own popularity. This is reminiscent of the “fridging” dynamic, in which love interests (particularly women) are killed off to forward the (usual male) protagonists arc. It is relevant that the one he attempts to kill, Karolina, is wearing the suit of his former romantic partner. Just as comic books often tout deaths to boost sales (death of superman, death of the inhumans, etc), the villain wants (and has in the past) done the same. I guess this book is saying it is such a force of positivity that it is no longer necessary to kill of characters for drama.
Tarot by
2.0
Don’t really know what this had to do with Tarot. It could have been magic trading cards and the plot would have been the same. It felt like a lot of throwing everything against the wall, without ever dealing in interiority or meanings. Why were there alternate realities? Kids were behind it all along? It doesn’t really make much sense.
Venom by Donny Cates Vol. 4: Venom Island by
2.0
The fallout from Maximum Carnage? Absolute Carnage? I get my adjectives mixed up. Of course the baddies aren’t really gone, and I guess the big Big bad is still coming. To that extent this is a time biding arc. Nothing wrong with that, but you’d hope they’d bide their time more interestingly. Everything with Eddie’s son is more interesting that with Eddie. I get it, he’s dark trying to be redeemed, but he’s been trying this whole dang arc. And in the end, nothing is accomplished. We’re basically in the same place we started the arc in, without even the illusion of change. I guess it was entertaining throughout.
Daredevil by Chip Zdarsky, Vol. 4: End of Hell by Chip Zdarsky
5.0
Zdarsky you bastard (and Checchetto you hero)...you’ve done it again.
The politics may be obvious and in your face. The billionaires are destroying a community for profit, so they can gentrify and replace. How do we stop this? The heroes and the ordinary people work together.
Politics makes for strange bedfellows. Sometimes you work (temporarily) with those that repulse you. But in the end, there are some universal truths. Billionaires will screw everyone over. The cops won’t defend you over property. And you get nothing, long term, working for your class enemies.
Plus Daredevil gets to fight Stilt Man. That’s always a treat.
The politics may be obvious and in your face. The billionaires are destroying a community for profit, so they can gentrify and replace. How do we stop this? The heroes and the ordinary people work together.
Politics makes for strange bedfellows. Sometimes you work (temporarily) with those that repulse you. But in the end, there are some universal truths. Billionaires will screw everyone over. The cops won’t defend you over property. And you get nothing, long term, working for your class enemies.
Plus Daredevil gets to fight Stilt Man. That’s always a treat.
Gifts Glittering and Poisoned: Spectacle, Empire, and Metaphysics by Chanon Ross
2.0
This book does a decent job analogizing how our society has created spectacles that, metaphorically, we worship and consume, like football games, politics, or music festivals. This is compared to the Roman spectacle of the arena and gladiator games. All fine and dandy, though I think it does overstate the extent to which all people participate in these events because of their desire for transcendence, or humanity’s innate desire for a communion with something greater.
However, the problems arise in the prescription for how to oppose this. It misidentifies the cause of this secular worship, blaming postmodernism and secularization. Instead, the source is simply capitalism and the need to create consumer subjects in response to the law of the falling rate of profit. If you don’t meaningfully challenge capital by changing who owns the means of production, this will continue. This lack of understanding of Marxist points is evident in the book’s continual citing of Hardt and Negri, critiquing their Marxism not for its diagnosis of the situation (because it can’t, because their diagnosis is correct) but for its preclusion of spirituality. It’s notable that not one liberation theologian is cited, because that would give the game away. They synthesize Marxism and Christianity in a way that actually challenges the seats of power, but the book can’t admit that because it doesn’t actually want to do that.
The book instead prescribes a return to liturgy and the eucharist as a challenge to consumerism. But how would it do that? The early Christians didn’t meaningfully oppose Rome because of liturgy. They opposed Rome by challenging its economic order and providing meaning and value to the oppressed lower classes, organizing them in acts of resistance. Of course, it didn’t do them much good in the end, because through Constantine Rome absorbed, appropriated, and deradicalized Christianity. The book doesn’t once mention this, because it would demonstrate how meaningless its prescriptions actually are. Capitalism doesn’t care if we take the Eucharist. Until we meaningfully fight against the economic order, it will still exist. Read a book on liberation theology instead of this.
However, the problems arise in the prescription for how to oppose this. It misidentifies the cause of this secular worship, blaming postmodernism and secularization. Instead, the source is simply capitalism and the need to create consumer subjects in response to the law of the falling rate of profit. If you don’t meaningfully challenge capital by changing who owns the means of production, this will continue. This lack of understanding of Marxist points is evident in the book’s continual citing of Hardt and Negri, critiquing their Marxism not for its diagnosis of the situation (because it can’t, because their diagnosis is correct) but for its preclusion of spirituality. It’s notable that not one liberation theologian is cited, because that would give the game away. They synthesize Marxism and Christianity in a way that actually challenges the seats of power, but the book can’t admit that because it doesn’t actually want to do that.
The book instead prescribes a return to liturgy and the eucharist as a challenge to consumerism. But how would it do that? The early Christians didn’t meaningfully oppose Rome because of liturgy. They opposed Rome by challenging its economic order and providing meaning and value to the oppressed lower classes, organizing them in acts of resistance. Of course, it didn’t do them much good in the end, because through Constantine Rome absorbed, appropriated, and deradicalized Christianity. The book doesn’t once mention this, because it would demonstrate how meaningless its prescriptions actually are. Capitalism doesn’t care if we take the Eucharist. Until we meaningfully fight against the economic order, it will still exist. Read a book on liberation theology instead of this.
Peter Porker, the Spectacular Spider-Ham by Zeb Wells
3.0
The episodic “let’s parody a different animation” works more or less. I just don’t think I’m the market for zany comedy books. The artwork is incredible, and somehow keeps up with the wildness of the story. But the jokes mostly don’t work for me, and in a comedy story, that means there isn’t much else left.